Re: Another frivolous lawsuit.
martincva said:
As with the AMD - Intel lawsuits of the 80's and 90's, if E* can show that they developed the features completely on their own, without stealing any TiVo company secrets (they didn't de-compile and/or use any source code), there would be no basis in the lawsuit. You cannot patent a feature, only a method of implementing the feature. Whatever Charlie is, I don't think he is a thief. I find it hard to believe that he is cognizant of any corporate theft going on.
I disagree, . . . a utility patent protects a process or machine that results in a unique feature(s) or function that differentiates it from past product. The way the feature is implemented does not matter. It makes no difference how the method is implemented, or whether or not a 2nd party developes it completely on their own or had obtained trade secrets on the original inventor's claims. All that matters for a patent infringement suit is if the two products do the same thing. At least, this is the common definition of what a utility patent protects. There have been other cases that have involved source code and copywrited material that may differ from a patent case.
Now with that said, it is only the 'claims' within a patent that are protected (these are number items of the patent). This is important to note, because a lot of information and description may be contained in the patent, but it is only these claims that are protected. These 'claims' usually are very difficult to read, and much more difficult to understand. This makes patent suits extremely difficult to try in front of a judge and/or jury. The claims are usually intentionally written as such to allow for broad interpretation of the claim. It is the government PTO's job to try to prevent broad claims, and to determine if any other claims in any other patent do the same thing. This is a very difficult job, and requires some specialized training.
I am an engineer, have a number of issued patents in my name, and have also been through two patent infringement suits to date. I can tell you patent suits gets real messy, and it usually doesn't make any sense to us average people. When one company makes a business decision to sue another, they will go after every possibly claim that they have in their patent portfolio that they fell the other company violated. They go for broke, but only need to prove one violation to 'win'. They may also choose not to litigate against other companies that many feel also infringe against the claims of the patent (usually do to the expense).
Saying so and so company's product does the same thing is not a defense. Usually, the only defense by the target company is to prove that the claimed features are different and they do not do what is claimed, prove that the claim in the patent is invalid due to 'prior art' (someone else did/does the same thing before the patent application was filed), or a procedure error occurred in the patent process to invalidate the claims or the patent(s). Usually, the holder of the patent only sues when they feel a business need exists and all other avenues have been exhausted. Again, they do not go after every possible violator (too expensive).
Anyway, this will get messy for E*, . . . likely cost them a lot of money in the end (TIVO too). In most of these cases, they are eventually settled out of court with the results never published (other than the case is closed). The only true outcome of this is that the lawyers on both sides will get richer (sorry in advance to all the attorney's out there). At least this has been my experience.
